<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Offsets are still counterfeit carbon credits]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by kandimba http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-are-still-counterfeit-carbon-credits/ Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:06:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-are-still-counterfeit-carbon-credits/1 I never thought, not even in my worst dreams, that the accuracy of measurement of soil and biomass carbon was so low. But that doesn't make a difference for the ones that design carbon markets or for the environmentalists that say "well, it's this or nothing, so...". This is sad, just sad.

Great story. The reference for JEQ was very useful.

http://cooltheearth.wordpress.com/

]]> I never thought, not even in my worst dreams, that the accuracy of measurement of soil and biomass carbon was so low. But that doesn't make a difference for the ones that design carbon markets or for the environmentalists that say "well, it's this or nothing, so...". This is sad, just sad.

Great story. The reference for JEQ was very useful.

http://cooltheearth.wordpress.com/

]]> Comment #2 by Glenn Hurowitz http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-are-still-counterfeit-carbon-credits/ Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:59:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-are-still-counterfeit-carbon-credits/2 How long should we wait until someone invents an alternative, politically viable means of ending deforestation and the 20 percent of climate pollution it causes and improving agriculture and the 15 percent of climate pollution it causes? We've needlessly lost more than 300 million acres of tropical forests since the Kyoto Protocol was signed. 30 million acres disappear every year, sending about 6 billion tons of carbon into the air. We've got to address that or we won't solve the climate crisis. We can't just focus on the 50 percent of climate pollution that comes from energy. Great New York Times editorial on this topic from Friday: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29fri2.html?ref=opinion

]]> How long should we wait until someone invents an alternative, politically viable means of ending deforestation and the 20 percent of climate pollution it causes and improving agriculture and the 15 percent of climate pollution it causes? We've needlessly lost more than 300 million acres of tropical forests since the Kyoto Protocol was signed. 30 million acres disappear every year, sending about 6 billion tons of carbon into the air. We've got to address that or we won't solve the climate crisis. We can't just focus on the 50 percent of climate pollution that comes from energy. Great New York Times editorial on this topic from Friday: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29fri2.html?ref=opinion

]]> Comment #3 by Gar Lipow http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-are-still-counterfeit-carbon-credits/ Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:52:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-are-still-counterfeit-carbon-credits/3 If you trade every reduction in ag+forest reduction for permission to burn lumps of coal, and you are counting those reductions wrong, then you are NOT REDUCING EMISSIONS! It is more important to make a solution that will work politically viable then to win a politically viable solution that won't work! I though liberals claimed the reality based mantle. Why is effectiveness completely unimportant?

I will also point out that the history of forest offsets has not exactly been great. Historical satellite picturs show that most carbon plantations planted as part of such experiments were monocultures replacing native rainforests! One of the reasons why CDM ended up with no or almost no forestry projects.

]]> If you trade every reduction in ag+forest reduction for permission to burn lumps of coal, and you are counting those reductions wrong, then you are NOT REDUCING EMISSIONS! It is more important to make a solution that will work politically viable then to win a politically viable solution that won't work! I though liberals claimed the reality based mantle. Why is effectiveness completely unimportant?

I will also point out that the history of forest offsets has not exactly been great. Historical satellite picturs show that most carbon plantations planted as part of such experiments were monocultures replacing native rainforests! One of the reasons why CDM ended up with no or almost no forestry projects.

]]>